I'd like to learn Hebrew, and my understanding is that the OT vocabulary is very limited, though creative word use, particularly in Hebrew poetry is a challenge to understand.

I don't know enough about the distinctions between Ancient and modern Hebrew to be certain, but I believe they are significant enough that Duolingo won't be a good fit, particularly as definitions of words in ancient Hebrew aren't always agreed upon.

Are there any recommendations? I have the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and a couple other books, since I thought they would be good references, but a lot of the word formations are dependent on pronunciation, and reading descriptions of how to pronounce words isn't doing it for me.

I saw this post. And it reminded me of a hobby I haven't paid much attention to for a while. Apparently there are at least two people who are moderately fluent at Toki Pona, soon to be joined by a third.
In the meantime, I was wondering what conlangs you find to be interesting or unique?

Edit - Also, do you speak any conlangs?

Inspired by this comment, and thinking about how we today look back on (for example) segregation, or the treatment of homosexuals through the last 100 years.
In the year 2120 what do you think human society will look back on and be disgusted to think about?

The big one for me I think will be the treatment of animals, and not just battery farming, but straight up growing them for slaughter: food, clothes, lab-testing, etc. With the nascent industry of 3d-printed/lab-grown meats gaining traction, as well as vegan and vegetarianism on the rise through much of the West, it's not hard to imagine our great-grandchildren being horrified at the thought of their ancestors raising animals just to kill them.

Can be posters, advertisements, videos/films and maybe national/revolutionary anthems/songs.

My favorites so far are:

"Is Colorado in america?" (Basically a US flag with various constitutional rights being
written as violated in the US flag's stripes in Colorado, including the 2nd amendment.)

"Daisy" (Lyndon B. Johnson campaign attack ad, implying that if you do not vote for LBJ, we would have nuclear war.)

Honorary mentions for: Wake up, by the Lincoln project, which has a very similar "these are the stakes" tune for 2020. Mourning in America and We will vote are pretty good too.

Not leaving the house much these days (due to social distancing and also insane heat in NYC right now) means I've got some time to kill that I'd like to spend productively.

I took MIT 6.00.2x: Introduction to Computational Thinking and Data Science a few years back when I was refreshing my Python skills. I think it's been updated a bit since then. It was a high quality course and I enjoyed it, though there are so many Python-related courses these days, I can't guarantee it's the best.

I'm currently taking:

1. Model Thinking on Coursera from the University of Michigan. I don't know where I saw this recommended (maybe on Tildes or Hacker News?) but it's quite good so far. Scott Page teaches about how to use various models (mental models, computational ones, etc.) for breaking down and analyzing various problems and systems. I've only just started but I quite like it.

2. Testing and Monitoring Machine Learning Model Deployments on Udemy. Taking this along with a few coworkers since it's relevant to what I do. Only just starting but appears to be quite good and works through a well-documented example project on Github.

I've also come across a few that seem like they might be good courses for the future:

• Bayesian Methods for Hackers
• Probalistic graphical models on Coursera (3-part sequence, not free)
• Computational probability and inference

Now your turn: what have you taken? What did you like or not like, and why? What do you want to take?

I love humanities and philosophy in particular. I'm also a layman in both counts. Nevertheless, sometimes I wanna post some personal/informal essays on these subjects, but I have no idea if my fellow Tilderinos have any interest in those at all.

So here are as some subjects I have in mind, please tell if you're interested in of those or anything relatead:

• The Philosohy of Love
• Possibile World Semantics
• Philosophical zombies
• Albert Camus
• The Kyoto School
• The Paradox of Fiction
• The Paradox of Suspense
• Aristotle's Rhetoric
• Informal Logic
• John Austin
• Speech Acts
• Fallacies

The idea is not to make anything resemble a professional take of these subjects, but rather informal commentaries that might serve as starting points for interesting discussions.

Sadly, I don' have the knowledge or disposition to comment on subjects that are typically popular on Tildes, such as those more directedly related to computer science and artificial intelligence.

In terms of reference, I won't go much beyond the refereed links, which are reasonably exhaustive for the purposes of this project. The periodicity will be once every two months (counting starts tomorrow), with the first post that comes in next Septemper 16, 2020 (Monday). 60 days from now. Because of that, it wil be probably long form (no quarantees!).

This would come in addition to my project of going through each informal fallacies in the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments, but I don't have any concrete plans for that now.

In any case, these things take time and effort, and I'll only then if and only if you guys and girls demonstrate interest. So please be vocal!

I'll choose the next subject of discussion base on public interest.

Admittedly that's 90 years of history but I've always wondered about what was the politics of the US back then, because I've never really known about them.

The parts I'm most interested in are:

Why did it take until 1832 for the state legislatures to reach a consensus on how to elect people to the electoral college? I know states' rights are a big theme in US politics, but it seems really strange that it would take them 55 years to figure out how to pick the president, even if early on, that role was a lot less powerful.

Why were there so many parties before the US settled on the Democratic and Republican parties (although they have changed plentifully thanks to the US's 2-party political system where everyone needs to bundle up into 2 large coalitions or risk turning the US into a 1-party state.)

Why did they switch so often? From my count there are:

4 main parties being:

The Democratic-Republicans vs the federalists

The Whigs and National Republicans vs the (Jacksonian) Democrats

3 3rd parties being:

The anti-masonic party

The know nothing party/cult according to wiki apparently

The free soil/anti-slavery party

(Also in 1820 there was effectively no election, in 1824, 4 people of the same party all ran for president at once, in 1836 the same thing happened and 4 Whigs ran at once, but with Democratic opposition and 3 actually won votes while one just coasted off south Carolina. Why?)

Why were there so many large parties and what were all these parties about?

I tend to watch AlternateHistoryHub, WhatIfAlthist and occasionally Monsieur Z (but less so since the guy somehow got a far-right audience) so I've always been interested in the idea of alternate history.

However, there's more than that. There are books and writers (I.E Harry turtledove), 3 subreddits (r/historywhatif, r/historicalwhatif and r/alternatehistory), many games (HOI I, II, III and IV, civ 1-6, Vicky 1-3, etc), a forum and according to Wikipedia, people have been speculating about history since before the year 0.

So what do you think of it?

With all the news about President Trump declaring "antifa" a domestic terror organisation, I heard a few local newsreaders saying this word on television. And their pronunciation of this word surprised me.

I've been mentally pronouncing this word as "AN-ti-fa", with the emphasis on the first syllable and a short vowel sound in the second syllable.

They pronounced it as "an-TEE-fa", with the emphasis on the second syllable, with a long vowel sound in that syllable.

My pronunciation is influenced by knowing that "antifa" is short for "anti-fascist". I don't know of any word with the prefix "anti-" where the second syllable is emphasised and the "i" sound is lengthened. Usually, the emphasis in "anti-" words is placed on the first syllable: "AN-ti-bac-TE-ri-al"; "AN-ti-TE-rro-rism"; "AN-ti-gen"; "AN-ti-bo-dy". So, I naturally emphasised the first syllable in "antifa": "AN-ti-fah".

When I heard the newsreaders saying "an-TEE-fa", it makes the word sound like an imported word/name from Spanish or Portuguese or Italian.

Is there a common pronunciation for this word? How do you pronounce it?

My personal picks would be the whole of Chinese history between the opium wars and communist rule (or the century of humiliation as it is called), and most especially the warlord era, given that this was effectively how European powers, Japan and many internal revolutionaries managed to bring down the greatest economy in the world to civil war and then total warlordism for 40 years. For a vague concept, my pick would be the great divergence, the period where the US and European nations rose above the rest of the world and became the predominant world powers and colonized most of it, along with the many potential causes of this.

I recently finished "Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind" by Shunryu Suzuki and was deeply moved. I've meditated sporadically over the years and dabbled in various Buddhist traditions yet never have I been so taken with an approach as I was after reading this. If there is anybody out there practicing Sōtō Zen would you be able to recommend anything to read next?

I'm starting school this coming Monday with the intent on getting a degree in horticulture. My classes include botany and plant identification. Something I struggle with is knowing how to pronounce words with Latin roots. Not knowing how to pronounce words makes it harder to commit words to memory, which of course makes it more difficult to recall. For example the words Leguminosae / Fabaceae - I know they are legumes, but have no idea how to pronounce it. It makes reading difficult because I find myself skimming. Does anyone have any resources that can help me pronounce the words I am reading.

I've been creating new languages for a few years now. I like to do it in my spare time, which becomes smaller and smaller each year, mostly from proto-languages that already exist. I'm currently working on a Slavic language in Belarus and Ukraine for fun. Anyone else into this stuff or wanna know more about conlanging in general?

This is something I was thinking about. When I read about the end of the second world war, the thing which surprises me the most is how easily the German population accepted that their government really committed such atrocities (Yes, I used Holocaust in the title, but I mean any genocide commited).

I was wondering how it might go down in our current culture with the emergence of Fake News and alternative "facts"; our post-fact culture. Would they more readily dismiss it as a photoshopped image? Would the impact be mitigated by the meme-ification of genocide?

(To a mod: The title should say « more or less »)

In Turkey, where I live, almost all universities restrict access to staff and students (only their own students if not a graduate student); the only exception I can find is the Koç University where paid membership is open to public. I've researched in the past and found that major universities around the world---i.e. Italy, France, UK, US; selection factor being the languages I can read---seem to allow the public to access in one way or another (article, in Turkish, with results). But I wonder how accurate my reading is with the reality, and thus I'm asking this question.

So, as a plain citizen w/o any current affiliation to any educational institutions, can you access university libraries where you live? Does it matter if you have certain diplomas or affiliations? How easy it is?

It is Wednesday, my dudes! So why not have some good old foreign-language practice? As an
experiment, let's try just that. Start a thread in a language you would like to practice or teach,
or reply to an existing one. E.g.

## German / Deutsch

Hier sprechen wir Deutsch! Wie geht es Ihnen?

If you want to fix someone's grammar and also reply to them in the same message, I would recommend
using a horizontal ruler with “* * *”. E.g.:

I think “sich” should be “ihm”.

* * *

Es tut mir Leid, dass es ihm so schlecht geht.

Hi! I've recently graduated as a BA of Italian philology. But I am interested in pursuing my further studies and academical career in linguistics, studying language contact and linguistic strata in particular. I was wondering if anybody took a similar path and am interested in advice from such folks and also any other humanists here. I'm studying some online material and will try to partecipate in some local university's linguistics BA as a visiting student (I guess it's called a freemover in English) if I can find an affordable option. Also I have found out recommended reading material from local universities I'm interested in and some papers about my field. Do you know of any useful resources for making the transition smoother? What has been you experience if you've taken a similar path to your studies? Thanks in advance!

Consider three examples:

1. I am a farmer. I have a piece of land that can grow just enough potatoes to feed me. I work this land, I gather potatoes, ad nauseam.

2. I am a farmer, but this time I have ten times the amount of land. I hire four workers and also work myself. Together we grow enough potatoes to feed all of us, and we also have a surplus. I sell this surplus potato for ¤5000. I am a greedy man, so I take ¤3000 for myself and give ¤500 to each of my workers.

3. The situation is the same as in 2, but this time I am a just man. I share the money equally, so everyone including myself gets ¤1000.

It seems to me that in the first case the land can be considered personal property, since there is no exploitation and no surplus is generated. In the second example the land is clearly a piece of private property, because I use it to exploit other people, taking most of the profit for myself.

But what about the third example? On one hand, the profit is distributed equally, so there is technically no exploitation, right? On the other hand, I am alienated from the workers, because I still have the power to fire one of them (or all of them if I know I can replace them) or to distribute goods unfairly (even if I don't do that). What is the Marxist point of view here?

pretty straightforward ask. i have some basic, rusty Spanish (on and off learning) and a bit of Esperanto to my name (currently learning) but not much else

eventually i want to speak French conversationally since my boyfriend can and i think it'd be neat to converse with him in more than English, but that's a long term goal.

One of my biggest hobbies and passions over the last 10 or 15 years has been essentially all of the above. I'm not the smartest or the most well-read lady out there by any means but I enjoy exploring the more shadowy realms of discourse. There's lots and lots of dross but occasionally a nugget of something magnificent, and over the years it's eroded away my original scientific materialist atheism completely and my thinking now is more animist, panpsychist, deist. I've spent years off and on experimenting with (actual, not stage) magic, and though I was never super committed to the full ceremonial experience like others I've seen, it's become a part of how I think.

So I was wondering if there's any here that don't fit into the typical scientific materialist box in one form or another. And if so, what're you reading or experimenting with right now?

Currently I'm reading through Conversations with God and it's persuaded me to start practicing loving-kindness meditation. I've only been at that a few days but I'm interested to see what impact it has on my daily life. It's definitely true that up until these past few days I've never actively focused on trying to love myself and others, which kind of surprises me when I think about it. But that sort of thing isn't really something I see emphasized in our culture or in my own little circle.

How about you?

I'm interested in patterns and culture. I think it's a fascinating topic from many perspectives. Mathematically there are many tools for pattern analysis and formation, but at the same time philosophically our minds try to make things fit into patterns generally (maybe because it requires more energy to remember a whole thing than a set of rules that describe the thing). A mathematical example of cases where order arises from pure disorder (or maximum entropy) would be Ramsey theory.

I'd like to discuss the cultural influence on our pattern analysis/synthesis, but also explore a bit what is a pattern, whether everything is a pattern or nothing is a pattern, whether patterns are interesting in themselves or not, etc.

I was wondering if anyone has recommendations for readings in this area, or if anyone has an opinion on it. I know of many works regarding a single pattern (for example the different theories of linguistics, the different theories of music, the different theories of cooking... you get the idea) but I've never seen a meta-perspective on why are we so interested on patterns and whether our approach actually makes sense.

Thanks!

There was a recent thread on ~talk about which linguistics habits people find annoying, and much to my horror, I have most of those which were mentioned. After thinking about it a little more, I realized that a lot of these habits were picked up from the media I consume and the people I interact with. I also feel that this problem is exacerbated by my poor knowledge of English grammar.

While I was taught grammar at an elementary level in school, I didn't quite grok it back then, and mostly relied on my instinct, as to what "sounded" right. I have since forgotten most of what I had learnt, and my instinct is failing me - my grammar is atrocious, my punctuation is terrible and I only have auto-correct to thank for my spelling.

I understand that English, like other languages, is constantly evolving. What is wrong now might be right tomorrow. However, I believe that this is no excuse for my shortcomings as there is merit speaking and writing in accordance with what is considered correct in the present day.

I would like to learn English from "first principles", and would greatly appreciate if some users could suggest some books/resources which could help me (bonus points for resources pertaining to British English). Any other suggestions would also be great.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

A series of gender neutral alternatives for the third person singular pronouns (he/she/it) have been proposed throughout the recent years (and maybe decades). I wonder the preferences of fellow users here in that regard. So I'd be glad if you could answer the questions in the title, and maybe elaborate a bit on the reasons of your preference. I'm both interested in this generally, and it could be useful as a means to help me practice quantitative linguistic variation (obviously this would hardly be scientifically usable source of data for actual real research so I'm not asking this for that purposes). I'll add my preference as a comment.

I feel like I'm a bit slow, though I'm gaining practice. I cannot read two moderate or long-ish papers in one day. I guess part of that reason is that the field I'm mostly reading in is a field I'm new to, though in accordance with that what I'm reading often is kindo-of introductory material (linguistics, and Linguistics Handbook ed. Aronoff, 2017). A chapter is around the size of an average paper (around 25-30 pages). Another factor may be that I'm not a native speaker of English, but I think I do have a quite decent command of it especially when reading, enough to read through ~60 A4 pages in five-six hours, but I just can't do it.

So I wonder if I'm too slow or maybe exaggerating it a bit? How long does it take for you, and how many can you read, without skimming/skipping, in a "day"?

I read some things about the philosophy and I'd really like to go deeper into it, but the book is so hard for me to read! I can't make sense of much of what I'm reading, maybe it's the vocabulary I'm not sure... Is there a more accessible book about absurdism?

The Ottoman Empire ended in 1922. The Roman Empire, 476, though it was survived by the Eastern Roman Empire which lasted until 1453 and the Holy Roman Empire which stuck around in some form until 1806.

Obviously these dates are inexact, but it's a useful historical tool to pick two events and use them as bookends to describe the arc of a given empire or society.

So with the benefit of sufficient hindsight, say 500 or 1000 years from now, what do you think will be the generally accepted date printed in history books for "here's the event that signals the end of this period of history"?

Do you believe it will be some point in the past, or the future? If you think it's in the past, how far back? What event?

If you think it's in the future, how far in the future? What do you predict will happen at that time to be the historical marker?

^{p.s. don't say "all history will be forgotten because of nuclear war". I agree that's a distinct possibility, but the likelihood of it happening is best addressed as a separate topic from this one. for the purposes of this thread assume we haven't completely fucked ourselves as a species and at least some records of our current time period exist.}

I enjoy reading and in many books I see references to philosophers: Sartre, Schopenhauer, Marx, Thomas of Aquino, Socrates and so on. I recognise their names, and often know the "main points" of their philosophy, but I still feel like I'm missing a lot of references.

What can I do to learn more about philosophy in general and famous philosopher's most known arguments in particular? I suspect reading their books without any pre-knowledge would be fruitless, or at least very boring. Is there a good recommended reading list where I can learn the basics of philosophy from the ground up?

Not sure if anyone will remember by now, but a few months ago I made a philosophical discussion thread in ~talk since a group like ~humanities didn't exist yet. I was super excited by all of the great discussion that I was able to join in, and now that we have ~humanities (thanks @Deimos!), I'm wondering how people would feel about some threads for more general discussion of various questions as opposed to the mostly link-based discussion that's gone on here so far.

Would anyone else be interested in that sort of thing? I'd be more than happy to start a few threads up over the next few days if people are interested.

I like thinking about alternative history. There are people like Harry Turtledove who write extensive alternative histories based on whether the South's main general's war plans got to the Northern armies' general in time for the Battle of Antietam. For me there's something appealing about thinking back through complex events in world history and finding critical moments and critical decisions that might have gone another way. I'm also quite taken with the idea that some historical events end up in hindsight looking like perfect storms, where a number of complex variables make the world we now know, but where any one of those variables would have produced a massively different result.

But I'm less interested in thinking about waving a magic wand to change the weather of some day or to change facts on the ground or morale or something like that. What I'm most interested in are situations where someone's individual decision might have dramatically altered the world. Can you identify one decision that happened in the past that you would have that person making it change? How might that set us up in a different reality?

A small note on housekeeping before I let you go. I know this might be a type of topic that walks the fence between something designed for ~talk and something best suited in ~humanities. I think of this as kind of an experiment to see how best to handle topics that straddle two different tildes.

A long time ago I had noticed a trend developing on reddit where people were starting to preface their comments with: "I for one". It's pretty insignificant, which is why I never made a post about it at the time. Since then, its use seems to have spread significantly on the site and I've seen it a bit here as well.

It makes sense to use the phrase when talking about or quoting another person to help separate their opinions from your own. The weird thing is many people now seem to use it when its not ambiguous that the comment is their own opinion. I was under the assumption that the default position should be that the comment is the opinion of the person that posted it.

For example:

"I for one, prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate."

Is the same as:

"I prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate."

There's nothing wrong with using the phrase, it just reads like someone trying to pad out an essay for school.

Have you noticed people using the phrase on other sites? Is it a phenomenon more specific to reddit?
Do you use the phrase yourself? If you do, what is your thought process when typing it out?

In light of @Deimos mentioning that we have a lot of "favorite" topics going around, how about something a little meatier?

I've seen it a few times already around threads that someone uses the word "guy" to refer to a poster and the response is "I'm not a guy". I'm not trying to invalidate this stance, but rather make this argument in the same way I argued for a singular "they". Consider the following:

• the plural form, "you guys" is already neutered. I can walk up to a group of women and ask "How're you guys doing?" and it doesn't draw any ire
• we've similarly neutered "dude" in both the singular and plural, but it's especially casual and almost familiar
• "gal" sounds like something out of the forties, "girl" is diminutive, and "person" is clinical / formal
• we don't have another common, non-gendered, non-specific term that fits the "sounds right" criteria and fits in the environment like the one we have (wherein users are getting to know each other and don't know exactly how to address one another).

I realize that this is probably masculine-normative and therefore problematic, but my main goal here is to stimulate discussion on a meatier topic (gender) without having it be an incredibly serious topic.

[EDIT]

I want to clarify a few things, as this reads a lot more trolly than it did 6 hours ago.

generalizing "guy" is a sexist idea because it attempts to make the masculine the generic (what I called "masculine-normativity" above). However, there isn't a term that adequately replaces "guy" but is neutered (@Algernon_Asimov brought up that "dude" fits, but is as more casual than "guy" than "person" is more formal). [Edit edit: I'm an idiot. They pointed out that "dude" as I had defined it earlier in my post would work just as well, but they did not agree that it has been neutered]

Instead of bringing this up as purely a matter of diction, I set myself up as an antagonist to see what would happen. And for this I apologize.

That said, I feel like there is some good discussion here and do not want to call making the thread a mistake. More that mistakes were made in the manner of its posting.